On October 22, the Republican candidate in the election for New York’s 23rd Congressional District, incumbent Representative Tom Reed, came to IHS to speak to seniors and to discuss public policy. Reed, an attorney and the former Mayor of Corning, has represented the 23rd district since 2013, and he visited IHS a week after his opponent, Democratic nominee Tracy Mitrano.
Reed’s event differed greatly from that of Mitrano the week prior. While Mitrano gave a stump speech and left time for student questions at the end, Reed structured his event as a conversation with students. After his introduction, the discussion immediately shifted to marijuana legislation. Reed spoke about the Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group composed of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans that Reed currently co-chairs. Reed noted that in this caucus, he and other members often debate on behalf of the side they oppose to better understand the opposing stance on policy issues, and in the discussion, Reed asked students to generate a list of ideas in support of and in opposition to recreational marijuana legalization. Reed stated his support for medical marijuana legalization, and noted that although he currently opposes the legalization of recreational marijuana, he is open to changing his mind if medical research comes to new conclusions about its health effects.
When Reed asked students why people choose to smoke marijuana, the discussion briefly shifted to mental health issues. The relative sense of calm in Kulp Auditorium was disturbed when one student asked to shift the discussion to the issue of abortion, a request that was initially refused. When another student asked a question about environmental legislation, a shift in the discussion did occur. Reed spoke briefly about his desire to see environmental legislation enacted at state levels, and his decision to oppose legislation that detrimentally impacts corporations that sustain communities.
Finally, after a few minutes, Reed did acknowledge the question of abortion. He stated that he is pro-life except in cases of rape, incest, or medical harm to the mother. He acknowledged the difficulties he faced in coming to this stance, but noted that he was influenced greatly by the situation of his mother, who had 11 children before giving birth to Tom Reed, and who was encouraged by doctors to abort her last pregnancy. Several students engaged with Reed on this issue, and the discussion grew increasingly heated before a student question shifted the discussion away from the topic.
Despite political differences between the Congressman and members of the audience, the event was remarkably civil, and Reed’s visit covered many varied areas of policy. After nearly an hour of discussing issues with students and answering questions, Reed was able to speak with The Tattler for an interview.
Vaynu Kadiyali ‘19: Right now, there seems to be great division within our congressional district. Do you see a divide between parts of our district that voted for Donald Trump and places full of those your campaign has described as “Extreme Ithaca Liberals,” and if so, can anything be done about it?
Tom Reed: First of all, I’d like to clarify what that term is. It’s not about residents of the city of Ithaca, or the town of Ithaca. Rather, it articulates the extremism that I try to fight against, both on the left and on the right. If you can recall, during the Tea Party movement of 2010, I would stand up in our town halls and I would call out some of the right wing that has embraced an extreme ideology, too. What I’m trying to encapsulate is that I hear from folks in Tompkins County and Ithaca that they live in “10 square miles surrounded by reality,” and I’m trying to show this mindset and fight against it. I have consistently fought against extremism, and I don’t try to label individuals.
VK: The opioid overdose crisis is one that significantly affects this community and others around the district. Ithaca’s mayor, Svante Myrick, has been at the forefront of the fight to promote clean injection sites for addicts, which you have voiced opposition to. What do you believe should be done to help victims of the opioid epidemic and stop its spread?
TR: I think injection sites are an extreme position, and will have a detrimental effect going forward. However, I totally see there being common ground on this issue in regards to the prevention and awareness of the issue, and about why folks are seeking this high and getting into this. I think mental health has to be a big component of any plan given that it’s an issue that we need to address as a community and a nation. Perhaps most importantly, our first responders need to be in a position to respond to this crisis, and law enforcement needs to be a component of a solution. Who I’m really trying to target with law enforcement are individuals who are using and manipulating addicts to carry and distribute drugs. I have a lot of compassion for addicts themselves and I want to help them, and I think that starts with stopping those who are exploiting addicts and trafficking these drugs.
VK: Do you believe the campaign finance system in our country is fair, and if not, what changes would you like to see enacted?
TR: I think a lot more transparency on campaign finances is needed. I think the issue of money in politics is best solved by putting a spotlight on where this money is coming from, where it’s going, and citizens should be in a position to ask informed questions. Republicans get asked all the time about campaign donations, and Democrats do too, and to me, asking these questions is the best path to finding a solution to the issue.
VK: Just recently, the Department of Health and Human Services announced its intention to create a definition of gender within federal programs, based on the genitals a person was born with, and with any dispute being resolved through genetic testing. Do you support this effort, which does not recognize transgender Americans?
TR: I have a clear record on LGBT issues, and I’ve stood with anti-discriminatory measures throughout my career. Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, a Democrat from New York who has led on this issue, and I have worked together to be at the front of standing with LGBT individuals. I’m going to stand and fight against any discrimination on the federal level, because from my perspective, we should embrace everyone.
VK: The Trump administration is considering using harsher deterrents to prevent entry of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers through the southern border, which is rumored to include renewing the policy of family separation. Do you support the president’s interest in being less open towards asylum seekers?
TR: There are definitely abuses in the border that need to be fixed. I do believe in a border that’s secure. That said, I also believe in a border that’s functional. When you’re dealing with asylum seekers and people who are legitimately and legally coming to America for the dream and opportunity that it represents, I’m supportive of that. Having more judges, more resources to process and evaluate these cases, I think is a prudent measure. Having a border that’s secure doesn’t just mean a wall—it also means technology. In doing so, we should also streamline the process of helping asylum seekers, and particularly of accepting temporary workers who fill underserved sectors, like in farming, and who return to their families.
Julian Perry ‘19: In regards to climate change, you have supported market-based solutions. As such, would you support a tax on carbon emissions, which has gained support from within your caucus?
TR: I’m not in favor of a straight carbon tax. But I am intrigued by a carbon fee and dividend, which is a type of carbon cost that you put on companies, with the dividends going back to the American people. Right now, there’s an insatiable appetite for revenue in Washington, and they want to tax everything for the sake of having more federal money. This approach is interesting to me because the costs allow for the market to respond appropriately to these changes, while also putting money directly in the American people’s pockets.